Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
If you thought you could win with either, you'd probably want to play Kolb. If you thought you were screwed with either, you'd probably want to play Kolb.
|
Like i said in my previous post, what if they don't agree with either of your above scenario's?
What if they think we can win now with Vick but cannot win now with Kolb, although they still have faith in him.
Quote:
|
I'm not exactly sure what playing Michael Vick does for the Eagles.
|
They may believe he gives them a chance to be competive now (in a weak NFC East) that Kolb doesn't due to youth and OL issues.
Quote:
|
I would trust Andy Reid with any quarterback conundrum to do the right thing, but believing in Mike Vick as a long term QB solution is just beyond the level of risk tolerance I would demonstrate as a high-stress decision maker. There's just limited evidence that Vick can be a useful cog in a passing offense.
|
I think the gamble that Reid is taking is wether or not Vick has developed as a passer. And if Vick has indeed improved as passer then his past performance isn't an indicator of his future performance.
Quote:
|
Even from Reid's perspective, this is a highly speculative move. It's a complete 180 from the McNabb trade, which was just a big age-risk dumpoff on the Redskins.
|
We never really know the reasoning behind McNabb being dealt, i think it was more or less forced on Reid.
Also, we have to consider that Reid himself didn't know how far Vick had progressed until he saw him play something other then wildcat in a real game.